[WikiEN-l] An observation

[Anthere]

Mav wrote
>Do you? We are here to build an encyclopedia. The
>community aspect is a means to an end, not an end in
>itself (and I think that was the underlying message
>that Danny was writing about).

I think so. Because the articles do not appear from no
where. They appear from a human capital that must be
mothered.

>And please consider how
>insulting it appears to put in quotes the word
>"Wikipedian" when referring to another contributor;
>in English this implies that you believe the other
>person is not a real Wikipedian. That isn't nice and
>I hope you will do the right thing and apologize to
>Danny - who /is/ a damn good and very real
Wikipedian.


That was not what I meant, so I apologize. However I
think that in Wikipedia, everyone can be part of the
big picture. And being a good wikipedian is not only
granted by being a *good editor* and a *good vandal
chaser*. If you and Danny think so, I think we
severely disagree upon how a team is working in a
project such as Wikipedia.

**If this is the case, I suggest that we discuss about
it, because that is very important.**

I think building an encyclopedia is not done only by
just creating articles.

participating in the building is also :

* helping setting the rules and recommandations
* building the software
* helping to sooth people in edit war
* balancing powers
* playing devil advocate
* cleaning after others
* welcoming newbies

and so on.

Danny seems to consider the only thing important and
valuable is making articles. I don't think so.
Everyone input is valuable, and people that are little
participating directly in articles are just as
important. Some of the developpers basically do not
write anything. Are they not important to the project
?


If people like Martin, KQ, Brion, The Cunctator, and
others of course, were not around, I would not be
around myself. Because if Brion were not there, no one
would take care of international wikipedias, if Martin
was not there, no one would take care of balancing
things, if The Cunctator was not there, no one would
take care of pointing out to obvious things being
missed because of groupthink.

And I could cite half a dozen people just doing *very*
important things in the project, that I think are even
more important than editing, because that is were
their power and ability rely.

A team (what I think we are, not a random collection
of little penpals), must be made up from very
different people, with different abilities which
complete themselves.

A project just can't work without software,
governance, structure. And yes, Zoe was important too
in her role of chasing vandals. And yes, welcoming
newbies is important too. And yes, Ed role of
insisting on NPOV is very important too. 

Not only "creating" articles.

The last point I think the worse in its underlying
meaning is to suggest martin should not be a sysop,
just because he is not writing much articles.

Remind me of what a sysop definition is please,
because I think we must also perhaps redefined what a
sysop must be.

Is it granted by the number of edits you make to an
article ?

Or is it granted by the fact people are confident you
will act in faith ?

Would anyone dare suggest Martin is not acting in good
faith ? Would anyone dare suggest Martin work was more
bad to the project than good, just because he tried to
balance power, endlessly check and improved all the
FAQ and meta articles, endlessly diffusing wikilove
over those in edit wars ?

I think that saying Martin is not a good wikipedian
and should be removed from sysophood just because he
is not creating many articles, is a VERY VERY VERY bad
direction the project is taking. I am sure you can see
that as well Mav.

I also hope very much that Danny will do the right
thing as well, and apologies to Martin who is also a
very good wikipedian.

This is a case of forking we have here if these things
are not agreed upon.

Anthere

--- daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I am a little annoyed by Martin's recent antics,
> regarding the unblocking of 
> vandals, not to mention his defense of the most
> obvious cases of extreme 
> vandalism (the Zog incident comes to mind). It is
> very difficult to ban someone on 
> Wikipedia--in fact, the number of permanently banned
> users I know of is just 
> six (HJ, Ark, Lir, Michael, DW, Zog, some of whom
> had various incarnations). 
> The ability to block an IP (and not a user name) is
> used to prevent kids from 
> adding grafitti to the site. In most cases, it is
> effective, and those vandals 
> disappear once it becomes more challenging to edit.
> It is not some instance of 
> eternal damnation. If the person apologizes and
> begins to really contribute, 
> they are welcomed back. Even in the serious bans
> above, people have been told 
> that if they reform their behaviors they can return
> and continue to contribute. 
> Discuss it with Jimbo and they will be welcomed
> back. Most don't because they 
> have no interest in coming back. 
> 
> Wikipedia is a project with a stated
> objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its 
> objective is not to create an ideal democratic
> society a la Martin's 
> perception of one. Nor is it a dumping ground, where
> anyone can put any crap they want 
> in the name of free speech. It is a place that works
> best by consensus and 
> compromise--not by making abrupt decisions that this
> must be the policy, come h
> ell or high water. That is why I was opposed to
> making a final decision on the 
> date format and spelling policies. Look how much
> time that wasted from the 
> overriding goal, when a compromise of allowing
> people to do what they want seemed 
> to be working fine for the most part. Unfortunately,
> it was Martin pushing 
> that finalizing agenda again. 
> 
> The end result of all this is that some of the
> serious long term contributors 
> have left--Zoe, for one, was one of the most
> prolific Wikipedians and a real 
> defender of the project against vandalism. While
> Martin is certainly prolific 
> on the Recent Changes, a quick look at his past 500
> changes show that his work 
> is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and
> most of the rest on 
> contentious pages, where it is bound to flame the
> fires of dispute.  
> 
> What I would like to see are some solid
> contributions--an article culled out 
> of a Talk page does not count---before wasting our
> time with the Vandal 
> Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was made
> a sysop whether it was to police 
> it over the rest of us or to further the goal of
> creating an encyclopedia. 
> 
> Danny
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com